The Continuing Al-Qaeda Threat

Appearing last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper testified that he could not say the threat
from al-Qaeda is any less today than it was ten years ago. It was a shocking
admission. Does he mean that the trillions of dollars spent fighting the war
on terrorism have resulted in no gains? That those who urged us to give up
some of our liberties to gain security have, as Benjamin Franklin warned, lost
both?

There may be reasons Director Clapper would want us to believe that the threat
from al-Qaeda is as strong as ever. An entire industry has arisen from the
government's war on terror, and for both the government sector and the security-industrial
complex the terrorist threat is big business. Economic pressure has thus far
not affected the military or intelligence sectors - despite false claims that
the sequestration cut military spending. However, emphasizing continued high
threat levels without being able to openly explain them due to secrecy requirements
is one way to keep the security budget untouched.

Also, emphasizing the continued high threat level from terrorists overseas
is a good way to frighten citizens away from their increasing outrage over
reports of massive domestic spying by the NSA. Unfortunately Americans may
still be more willing to give up their liberties if they are told that the
threats to their security remain as high as ever.

What if Clapper is telling us the truth, however? What would this revelation
mean if that is the case?

For one, it means that we have gotten very little for the tremendous amount
of spending on the war on terrorism and the lives lost. We are told that the
military and intelligence community can protect us if they are given the tools
they need, but it appears they have not done a very good job by their own admission.

More likely, it may mean that the US government's policies are causing more
al-Qaeda groups to arise and take the place of those who have been defeated
by US drone and military attacks. Clapper does mention that there are so many
different al-Qaeda franchises popping up it is difficult to keep track of them
all, much less defeat them. But why is that? A former State Department official
stated last year that every new drone strike in Yemen that kills innocent people
results in the creation of 40-60 new enemies. Likewise, the young girl from
Pakistan who had been brutally shot by the Taliban for her desire to go to
school told President Obama during a White House meeting that "drone attacks
are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they
lead to resentment among the Pakistani people."

Are there more al-Qaeda groups out there because our policies keep creating
new ones?

On that point, Clapper said to the Senate that in Syria the al-Qaeda affiliated
al-Nusra Front "does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland." It is all
the more disturbing, then, to have also read last week that Congress voted
in secret to resume sending weapons to the Syrian rebels, who are dominated
by al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. We have read about US-supplied weapons meant
for "moderates" in Syria being seized by
radicals on several occasions, and the Voice of America reported last
year that our Saudi "allies" are arming the same al-Nusra Front that Clapper
identifies as a threat to the US. Is the US Congress arming the very people
who will commit the next attack on US soil?

Why is al-Qaeda as much a threat as it was ten years ago? Perhaps it is that
we continue to fight the wrong war in the wrong manner. Perhaps because we
refuse to consider that many overseas are angry because of our government's
policies and actions. After ten years of no progress, is it not time to try
something new? Is it not time to try non-intervention and a strong defense
rather than drone strikes and pre-emptive attacks?

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier
advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman
in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets,
and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency.
He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for
his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never
votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized
by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon,
Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.